Quite from the top down your comment, but okay. > Mozilla is not a democracy. Obviously not, no. But as a user and a society we can still democratically decid

Quite from the top down your comment, but okay. > Mozilla is not a democracy. Obviously not, no. But as a user and a society we can still democratically decide how to handle companies and how they do business. And we can express our opinions just like I did and some people seem to have the same opinion, that's nice. > You donate towards their mission and you are probably not informed enough about the back-stage politics of their foundation. What is this? Some kind of "Our savior knows better than you, so keep your mouth shut, sheep!" didactics? From what little I can see from the front, I really don't want to get to know their back-stage politics. And why back-stage politics after all? What's wrong about a clear "let's build the best, privacy-focused browser and best mail program" as a company mission? Actually that would be a great mission in this day and age. No need for back-stage politics and a more complicated mission. > It’s like donating to Wikipedia [...] The issue is that you are donating towards infrastructure [...] Especially this is not correct for Wikipedia/Wikimedia. They are doing _lots of_ stuff with that money that has absolutely nothing to do with keeping Wikipedia up and running. See [0] or [1] for lots of examples. [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia... [1] https://www.wikimedia.de/de/themen https://www.wikimedia.de/de/themen